Author

Lecturer Faculty of Law, School of Justice, Queensland University of Technology

Disclosure statement

Erin O'Brien does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.

In the public debate on gun control, the National Rifle Association (NRA) and pro-gun activists rely on a few key arguments to justify an individual’s right to own firearms. But if you strip away the millions of dollars organisations like the NRA spend on selling these arguments, how persuasive are they?

‘Guns don’t kill people. People kill people’

This sentiment is probably the best-known anti-gun control argument. But even on the most basic test of logic, it fails. The most that can really be argued is that people kill people, using guns. Pro-gun activists will argue that people also kill people using knives, but we don’t require them to get a licence before buying a kitchen cleaver. They also argue that people kill people using cars as a result of drunk or reckless driving, but we don’t ban automobiles.

Drawing an analogy between a gun and a car, or kitchen knife, is truly idiotic. The purpose of a car is to provide transport. If someone gets killed in a car, it is a tragic accident. The purpose of a kitchen knife is to chop food products. If someone gets stabbed, the knife is being used incorrectly. If someone gets shot with a gun, the firearm has fulfilled its purpose admirably.

If guns are so incidental to the act of killing, why then do we arm soldiers? Should we not instead send them into battle with a drunk driver, or perhaps a ceramic carving knife?

The NRA relies so heavily on this argument that they have established an organisation called the Freedom Action Foundation to lobby in support of Second Amendment rights.

This amendment should not necessarily be viewed as an automatic right to carry an automatic weapon. The constitution was created following a war of independence where citizen militias rose up against an oppressive state.

In this historical context, it is understandable that the right to bear arms in order to fight for freedom would be deemed necessary. Centuries later, could a “well regulated militia” simply mean a police force managed by an elected government?

Or does it mean that individuals should carry automatic weapons and stockpile nuclear warheads just in case one day they need to overthrow the government? Surely the opportunity to bloodlessly vote them out every four years makes the purchase of grenades and rocket launchers somewhat redundant.

Shooting and hunting as an important cultural activity

In Spain, bullfighting is an important cultural activity, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t cruel or highly dangerous. The right to sports shooting seems to have particular strength in a country where in 2006 US Vice President Dick Cheney shot a friend in the face on a hunting trip, and was as popular as ever.

Introducing strict gun control does not, however, need to mean the end of sports shooting. Australia has an active sports shooting culture, where athletes can access weapons through licensed shooting clubs. But do they need to keep these deadly weapons at home? After all, elite rowers don’t keep a racing eight in the driveway to get in some extra training on the weekend.

Safer without guns

In a country where it seems that just about everyone has a firearm, gun control is essential, but won’t be an immediate fix. Sweeping gun reform, and even a constitutional amendment, will not prevent gun deaths in the short term. Attitudinal change to accept the reality that we are safer not with, but without, guns will take a generation.

In the meantime, it won’t be long before someone suggests that the Sandy Hook tragedy would not have occurred if only every teacher carried a gun. This is the worst argument of all.